The corners of the rectangle where a tensile test is done are marked in indelible ink. (And some other info is written in, if doing the round canopy tests exactly according to the National or PIA bulletins.)

The tests aren't done on top of each other. Well, that's the assumption and what seems normal to do, but I don't recall offhand whether it is technically prohibited.

Still, there are certain sections of panels on the rounds, next to the mesh, which are to be tested. If one actually has an old round in service that got packed a couple times a year and you did all the prescribed tests all the time ... by now you'd have a whole pile* of test points all over a 2 ft by 2 ft section. And those round canopy tests are 40lbs, not 30 like for PD's, so it is really starting to stress the fabric.

* eg, not being quite exact with dates: (2012-1989)*2 = 46 pull tests per panel by now

For example, I have only one patch on one PD reserve. The newly-minted FAA Senior Rigger was embarrassed that he had tensile-tested a hole in a PD reserve, so he asked me to sew a patch on it. As far as I could tell, he had tensile-tested exactly in accordance with PD guidelines. HOWEVER I suspected that he had pull-tested on top of an area that had been weakened by an earlier pull-test. My old eyes could not spot the characteristic weave separation - and none of the earlier riggers had marked thier test patches .... GRRRRR!!!!!

Tests should be designed to do no harm at all. I realize that the test is not a "destructive" test in that it doesn't test until failure, but you admitting that repeated tests must be done in different areas means that the test is doing harm. That seems like a poorly designed test.

Tests should be designed to do no harm at all. I realize that the test is not a "destructive" test in that it doesn't test until failure, but you admitting that repeated tests must be done in different areas means that the test is doing harm. That seems like a poorly designed test.

That testing method works if everyone plays by the rules ... unfortunately, not every rigger plays by the rules.

The test only causes minor weave separation if done perfectly. Unfortunately, "perfect" requires expensive tools, younger eyes than mine (to align tools with the weave) and patience. As long as you test BESIDE the last test, the risk of tearing is minimal. If the last rigger forgot to mark where he tested, then the risk of tearing fabric rapidly increases.

Apparently some customers whined about "marking all over their shiny reserves."

OTOH some (prissy) riggers refuse to repack PD reserves if the number of pack jobs does not exactly match the number of marks on the data panel.

Reality is somewhere between those two extremes. Life ... business ... politics ... religion ... sports ... etc. would be a lot simpler if everyone agreed to play by the same rules.

Tests should be designed to do no harm at all. I realize that the test is not a "destructive" test in that it doesn't test until failure, but you admitting that repeated tests must be done in different areas means that the test is doing harm. That seems like a poorly designed test.

well said Mr Warner. How have you been? PM me with contact details and well catch up.

That testing method works if everyone plays by the rules ... unfortunately, not every rigger plays by the rules.

The test only causes minor weave separation if done perfectly. Unfortunately, "perfect" requires expensive tools, younger eyes than mine (to align tools with the weave) and patience. As long as you test BESIDE the last test, the risk of tearing is minimal. If the last rigger forgot to mark where he tested, then the risk of tearing fabric rapidly increases.

Apparently some customers whined about "marking all over their shiny reserves."

OTOH some (prissy) riggers refuse to repack PD reserves if the number of pack jobs does not exactly match the number of marks on the data panel.

Reality is somewhere between those two extremes. Life ... business ... politics ... religion ... sports ... etc. would be a lot simpler if everyone agreed to play by the same rules.

Regardless, this letter will not change that, it is too easy to prove the safety side of this because of the "agents" break down over time. They don't like to use the words "explosive charge"..... think TSA.

"Regardless, this letter will not change that, it is too easy to prove the safety side of this because of the "agents" break down over time. They don't like to use the words "explosive charge"..... think TSA. "

So change the cutter not the whole unit.

Also, I agree since they are not TSOD the letter isn't applicable.

I just wanted to point out the some riggers are ready to repack old parachutes that the manufacturer says have a life limit but not old AAD that the manufacture decided to give a life limit so he could sell more AADs.

I just wanted to point out the some riggers are ready to repack old parachutes that the manufacturer says have a life limit but not old AAD that the manufacture decided to give a life limit so he could sell more AADs.

AADs are not TSOd so they are outside the purview of the FAA. It is up to the manufacturer to indicate which AAD is compatible with their system.

What is binding is that the FAA say AADs are compatible only if maintained in accordance with the AAD manufacturer's instructions and guidelines.

So Airtec, for example, can put a 12 year life on their AAD and once it has lifed out it cannot legally be used in a skydiving rig.

While AADs are not TSOed, the FAA stipulates that users maintain them according to the manufacturer's directions.

FAR § 105.43 (c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device.

Right you are. Just to play devil's advocate, though, the current ruling indicates that the ruling manufacturer's instructions, including life limits, are those in place at the time the unit is sold. So if you bought a unit and have a manual that does not have a life limit stated, you should be good to go as far as the FAA is concerned.

At the last PIA Symposium, Airtec gave a seminar about Cypres 1 component "life.: After decades of experience, they concluded that cutters tend to deteriorate after 12 years, while soldered joints tend to "fatigue" after 15 years.

Keep in mind that those numbers where related to worst-case scenarios: with lots of vibration, dozens of jumps per day, large temperature variations every day and occasionally getting dropped on concrete.